The Architecture of Informal Censorship: Government Jawboning, State-Proxy Coercion, and First Amendment Doctrine in the Digital Age

Full report

On this page

The Paradigm Shift from Formal Restraints to Informal Coercion

First Amendment jurisprudence in the United States was historically constructed to combat the formal, overt exercise of government power1. For centuries, the legal frameworks safeguarding free expression focused on statutory bans, judicial injunctions, criminal prosecutions, and prior administrative restraints explicitly designed to suppress disfavored speech1. However, the expansion of the modern administrative state has yielded an expansive repository of informal power, allowing government actors to shape public discourse without ever passing a law or issuing a formal regulatory order1. When government officials leverage the prestige of their office, the implied threat of regulatory scrutiny, or the promise of leniency to pressure private entities into censoring speech on the government’s behalf, they engage in a practice known as "jawboning"1. Jawboning represents a severe, systemic threat to freedom of expression precisely because it operates within the shadows of administrative discretion, entirely outside the formal mechanisms of administrative law and judicial review3. By utilizing private intermediaries—such as booksellers, advertisers, financial institutions, and prominently, social media platforms—government actors execute state-proxy censorship4. This tactic systematically blurs the crucial constitutional boundary between permissible government speech and impermissible state action6. The government is undeniably entitled to use the "bully pulpit" to advocate for its policies, criticize public discourse, and attempt to persuade citizens and corporations alike6. Yet, when persuasion transforms into intimidation, it creates a system of informal censorship that evades traditional constitutional safeguards1. The proliferation of the digital public square has exponentially magnified the jawboning threat. In an era where a handful of multisided technology platforms possess unprecedented control over the global marketplace of ideas, government officials no longer need to censor millions of individual speakers. Instead, they need only pressure a few corporate executives5. This centralization of private power over public discourse has tested the limits of mid-20th-century First Amendment doctrine, leading to a deeply fractured judicial and legislative landscape. Furthermore, the epistemic consequences are profound; when government pressure forces platforms to curate out disfavored viewpoints, it creates a distorted informational ecosystem where marginalized or dissenting political expression is systematically throttled before it can reach the public2. Through a comprehensive examination of historical precedents, the weaponization of the administrative state, landmark 2024 Supreme Court rulings, and emerging legislative solutions, this report unpacks the doctrinal disarray surrounding government jawboning and the structural challenges of safeguarding free expression in the digital age.

Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Jawboning Doctrine

The term "jawboning" gained political prominence in the early 1960s during a clash over economic policy, when President John F. Kennedy used the threat of antitrust investigations and the revocation of lucrative Pentagon contracts to pressure U.S. steel companies into abandoning planned price increases1. While that specific incident involved economic regulation, the strategy of leveraging informal administrative threats was rapidly adapted for speech suppression1. The foundational constitutional framework for analyzing such informal censorship under the First Amendment was established by the Supreme Court over six decades ago in the landmark case of Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963)1.

The Bantam Books Framework and the Prohibition of Indirect Censorship

In Bantam Books, the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth was tasked by the state with identifying "obscene, indecent, or impure" publications1. The Commission entirely lacked the formal regulatory authority to ban books or directly prosecute publishers. Instead, it sent official notices to private book distributors, informing them that certain books had been declared objectionable by the Commission, reminding them of the state’s obscenity laws, and heavily implying that failure to voluntarily remove the books from circulation would result in a referral to the Attorney General for criminal prosecution6. The Supreme Court ruled forcefully in favor of the publishers, holding that the Commission's actions violated the First Amendment by erecting a "system of informal censorship"1. The Court recognized that although the Commission employed only informal sanctions and lacked direct enforcement power, its official communications went "far beyond advising the distributors of their legal rights and liabilities"6. The pressure campaign effectively served as a prior restraint, and it succeeded in its aim of suppressing targeted publications without affording the publishers any substantive or procedural due process2. The core doctrinal tenet established in Bantam Books is that a government official cannot do indirectly what they are constitutionally barred from doing directly1. The ruling established the fundamental dividing line in jawboning doctrine: the distinction between constitutional persuasion and unconstitutional coercion6.

The State Action Doctrine and the "Public Function" Debate

The prohibition against indirect censorship is inextricably linked to the State Action Doctrine. The U.S. Constitution textually demarcates private action from state action, exposing only the latter to constitutional proscriptions15. However, as the Supreme Court articulated in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), it is axiomatic that the state may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish2. When private entities restrict speech due to government compulsion, those private moderation decisions are transformed into state action, triggering strict First Amendment scrutiny17. In the modern context, some legal theorists argue that the sheer scale of multisided technology platforms requires an expansion of the "public function" exception to the State Action Doctrine. Under historical precedents like Marsh v. Alabama (involving a company town) and Evans v. Newton (involving a privately managed public park), private entities performing functions traditionally and exclusively reserved to the state become subject to constitutional limitations18. Proponents of this view argue that when modern corporations regulate speech, discipline livelihoods, and exert de facto judicial authority over expressive rights on a global scale, they perform functions indistinguishable from state action18. Thus, when the government jawbones these entities, it is not merely pressuring a private business, but co-opting the primary infrastructure of the digital public square18.

Doctrinal Evolution in the Lower Appellate Courts

Following the Bantam Books decision, lower appellate courts spent decades grappling with how to apply the coercion test to varying forms of government pressure. A consensus gradually emerged that explicit or heavily implied threats of prosecution, regulatory retaliation, or financial ruin constitute unconstitutional state-proxy censorship, even if the government official lacks direct regulatory authority over the targeted entity12. Two prominent appellate decisions highlight this evolution and set the stage for modern litigation:

1. Okwedy v. Molinari (2d Cir. 2003): In this case, a New York borough president wrote a formal letter to a billboard company demanding the removal of a religious organization's controversial billboards1. The official invoked his official capacity and explicitly noted that the billboard company derived significant economic benefits from operating within the borough12. The Second Circuit held that the borough president's lack of direct regulatory authority did not immunize him from First Amendment scrutiny. The relevant inquiry was whether a reasonable person in the position of the recipient would perceive the official's communication as a credible threat to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech12.

2. Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart (7th Cir. 2015): In an opinion authored by Judge Richard Posner, the Seventh Circuit held that a Chicago sheriff violated the First Amendment by sending letters on official law enforcement letterhead to major credit card companies, demanding they cease processing payments for Backpage.com due to the site hosting adult classifieds8. The court noted that while the sheriff had no direct regulatory power over global financial networks, his invocation of law enforcement authority to cut off a platform's financial lifeblood constituted a coercive prior restraint6.

Through these and similar cases, the lower courts developed multi-factor balancing tests to distinguish permissible government speech from unconstitutional coercion.

These four factors—ultimately adopted by the Second Circuit and heavily scrutinized by the Supreme Court—formed the legal battlefield upon which modern digital jawboning claims would be fought22.

The Digital Public Square and the Weaponization of Administrative Discretion

While historical jawboning campaigns targeted physical distributors and traditional advertisers, modern informal censorship overwhelmingly targets the digital intermediaries that host the vast majority of human discourse: social media networks, search engines, web hosting services, and increasingly, generative artificial intelligence systems5. Multisided tech platforms are uniquely vulnerable to government coercion because they operate within complex, highly regulated informational ecosystems where restrictions aimed at one side of the platform severely impact the others5.

Section 230 and the Structural Leverage of Regulatory Threats

To understand why platforms are so susceptible to jawboning, one must understand the statutory framework that enables their existence: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In the early 1990s, the common law of defamation created a severe legal paradox for internet services. Cases like Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. established a binary: if a platform remained a passive distributor, it was generally not liable for third-party content. However, if a platform exercised any proactive editorial discretion to moderate objectionable content, it could be legally classified as a publisher, exposing it to massive defamation liability for any unlawful content it failed to catch26. This dilemma threatened to destroy the nascent internet through "collateral censorship," wherein platforms would heavily over-censor user speech to avoid devastating lawsuits26. Congress enacted Section 230 to provide a liability shield, allowing platforms to host third-party content and engage in good-faith moderation without being treated as publishers26. In the modern jawboning context, Section 230 has been transformed from a shield for platforms into a sword for politicians. Jawboning in the digital era frequently involves lawmakers or executive officials explicitly or implicitly threatening to repeal or heavily modify Section 230 protections, or threatening to initiate aggressive antitrust investigations, if platforms do not censor speech the government disfavors4. For example, in 2020, the executive branch threatened "big action" regarding Section 230 after platforms appended fact-checks to presidential posts, explicitly linking the statutory protection to the platform's editorial choices4. Because technology platforms rely on this statutory shield for their fundamental survival, the mere threat of legislative or regulatory revocation serves as a uniquely powerful instrument of coercion, forcing platforms to internalize government speech preferences to avoid existential legal risks27.

The Institutionalization of Pressure: CISA, "Switchboarding," and the MDM Apparatus

The mechanism of modern jawboning has evolved far beyond public threats on the bully pulpit; it has become a sustained, institutionalized pressure campaign conducted continuously behind closed doors by the administrative state. A primary example of this is the evolution of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Originally established in 2018 within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect critical physical and digital infrastructure from cyber threats, CISA rapidly expanded its mandate to include the surveillance and policing of domestic digital speech16. Following the 2016 election, CISA created the Countering Foreign Influence Task Force (CFITF)16. However, by the 2020 election cycle, this mission experienced severe "mission creep," pivoting aggressively from foreign state-sponsored influence to domestic "Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation" (MDM)16. CISA began engaging in a highly controversial practice known internally as "switchboarding"28. During the 2020 election, local and state election officials would flag domestic political speech they deemed misleading and send it to the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC). The EI-ISAC routed the content to CISA, which then forwarded the flags directly to social media platforms for removal, demotion, or labeling16. According to investigations by the House Judiciary Committee's Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, CISA utilized its authority to act as a "singular conduit" for a censorship-by-proxy operation, deeply entwining federal officials in the content moderation workflows of private technology companies16. By operating through CISA-funded non-profits and external advisory committees (such as the Election Integrity Partnership), the agency attempted to mask its speech-policing functions, explicitly acknowledging internally a desire to "avoid the appearance of government propaganda"16. Following intense public scrutiny, lawsuits, and political backlash, CISA abandoned the formal switchboarding practice in 2022, but the infrastructure of government-platform coordination remained a focal point for constitutional litigation28.

The Zuckerberg Disclosure and Unseen Administrative Pressure

The reality of this sustained, behind-the-scenes administrative pressure was starkly corroborated in August 2024, when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg submitted a highly detailed, formal letter to the House Judiciary Committee30. In the letter, Zuckerberg detailed how senior officials from the Biden administration, including personnel directly from the White House, repeatedly pressured Facebook for months to censor specific COVID-19 content32. This pressure was not limited to medical misinformation; the administration repeatedly demanded the removal of humor, memes, and satirical content that expressed vaccine hesitancy or criticized pandemic policies32. Zuckerberg explicitly categorized the administration's actions as relentless "pressure" and stated on the record, "I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it"31. Furthermore, he admitted that due to federal law enforcement warnings regarding potential foreign disinformation, the platform had preemptively throttled the distribution of the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election—a decision the company later determined was erroneous, as the story was not foreign disinformation30. The Zuckerberg disclosure serves as a highly significant evidentiary artifact in the jawboning debate. It unequivocally confirms that platforms frequently alter their content moderation policies not out of independent editorial judgment, but to appease persistent, granular demands from executive branch officials who hold vast regulatory power over the tech sector32.

Expanding Vectors of Jawboning: Title VI, the FCC, and the FTC

While social media moderation dominates the public discourse, government jawboning leverages regulatory vulnerabilities across multiple sectors of the economy. The administrative state utilizes whatever regulatory nexus is available to exert pressure on targeted speech.

Higher Education and Title VI Funding Threats

Jawboning actively occurs within higher education. During periods of intense campus protests, government officials have increasingly threatened to revoke federal funding or launch sweeping investigations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act if universities fail to suppress certain forms of political expression or student demonstrations35. Legal scholars Evelyn Douek and Genevieve Lakier have documented how the administrative state uses Title VI as a jawboning tool, placing universities in an impossible position: protect student First Amendment rights and risk devastating financial ruin through the loss of federal grants, or aggressively police student speech at the behest of the government35. This forces university administrators to act as proxies for state censorship to protect their institutional survival.

Broadcasting and FCC Licensing

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wields immense structural power over traditional broadcasters through its authority to grant, review, and revoke broadcast licenses under the vague statutory standard of the "public interest"3. This authority provides a constant temptation for jawboning. For example, during the Trump administration, officials suggested that network broadcast licenses should be challenged or revoked in retaliation for unfavorable news coverage or late-night comedy routines (such as those by Jimmy Kimmel)3. Because broadcasters rely on these licenses to operate, the mere suggestion of FCC scrutiny serves to chill investigative journalism and political commentary, demonstrating that jawboning is a bipartisan temptation utilized by whichever administration holds the levers of power13.

The FTC and the Pivot to Advertisers

As technology platforms have mounted successful legal defenses regarding their First Amendment right to curate content, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has subtly shifted its jawboning targets. Instead of pressuring the platforms directly, regulatory agencies have increasingly targeted the financial lifeblood of the internet: digital advertisers and media-monitoring organizations5. By pressuring advertisers to boycott platforms that host disfavored speech (or investigating the advertising syndicates themselves), the government achieves the same censorship outcomes indirectly5.

Extralegal Intimidation: The ICEBlock Litigation

Jawboning also extends to the suppression of specific digital tools and applications. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is currently litigating a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit regarding the "ICEBlock" app, a tool designed to allow the public to report immigration enforcement activity in their communities37. According to the EFF, high-ranking federal officials in the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security began threatening to investigate and prosecute the creator of the app. Subsequently, the government demanded that Apple and Google remove ICEBlock from their respective app stores, and the companies complied37. This demonstrates how the government uses its immense law enforcement authority to coerce tech monopolies into removing lawful, First-Amendment-protected tools that run counter to the administration's policy objectives37.

The 2024 Supreme Court Term: A Tale of Two Jawboning Cases

The mounting tension over government pressure on digital speech culminated in the Supreme Court’s 2024 term, which featured two major jawboning cases: National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo and Murthy v. Missouri. Together, these decisions created a deeply bifurcated doctrinal landscape. The Court clarified the substantive First Amendment prohibition on direct, formal coercion, while simultaneously establishing formidable procedural barriers for plaintiffs seeking relief against diffuse, systemic administrative pressure.

NRA v. Vullo: Reaffirming the Prohibition on Indirect Coercion

In NRA v. Vullo, the Supreme Court confronted a classic, analog-style jawboning campaign characterized by overt threats against financial intermediaries23. Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), launched an investigation into "Carry Guard," an insurance program offered by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and underwritten by prominent institutions like Chubb and Lloyd's of London23. While Carry Guard was found to violate technical New York state insurance laws, Vullo heavily leveraged these infractions to pursue a broader ideological objective21. Following the Parkland school shooting in 2018, Vullo held private, closed-door meetings with senior insurance executives. During these meetings, she explicitly offered regulatory leniency regarding the technical insurance infractions if the companies agreed to sever all business ties with the NRA21. Simultaneously, she issued official DFS guidance letters urging all regulated banks and insurers to evaluate the "reputational risks" of doing business with gun promotion organizations, strongly hinting at future audits for those who failed to comply39. Fearing the severe financial penalties and business disruptions that DFS could unilaterally impose, multiple major insurers severed their relationships with the NRA, severely hampering the organization's ability to function38. In a unanimous 9-0 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court ruled that the NRA had plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation, reversing the Second Circuit's dismissal of the case23. The Court forcefully reaffirmed the Bantam Books precedent, establishing definitively that a government official cannot wield regulatory power selectively to punish or suppress speech, whether directly or through private intermediaries23. The Vullo decision provided critical doctrinal guideposts for jawboning jurisprudence:

1. Contextual Coercion over Formal Power: The determination of coercion relies on a holistic, objective assessment of the communication. The Court noted that a threat by a regulator need not be explicit to be unconstitutional; a suggestion that regulators might "look the other way" in exchange for compliance (a mix of threat and inducement) can violate the First Amendment38.

2. The Limits of Lawful Enforcement: Even if a government official possesses a perfectly legitimate law enforcement rationale (e.g., actual technical insurance violations), they cannot selectively deploy that enforcement power to retaliate against an organization for its protected political advocacy38. Neutral enforcement is permissible; selective deployment to silence opposition is unconstitutional38.

3. The Distinction Between Coercion and Retaliatory Injury: In a highly notable concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized the need to conceptually separate the act of government coercion from the resulting First Amendment injury. She noted that governments coerce private parties to obey the law every day; coercion only violates the Constitution when it is deployed with a retaliatory motive that successfully forces a private party to suppress the plaintiff's protected speech38.

Vullo proved that when jawboning involves direct, documented threats of formal regulatory sanctions targeted at specific, highly regulated financial intermediaries, the courts will readily pierce the veil of informal censorship and provide relief38.

Murthy v. Missouri: The Procedural Shield of Article III Standing

Decided just weeks after Vullo, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) presented a vastly different factual matrix and resulted in a starkly different outcome. In Murthy, two states (Missouri and Louisiana) and five individual social media users sued dozens of officials across the White House, the CDC, the Surgeon General's office, the FBI, and CISA42. The plaintiffs alleged that a coordinated, whole-of-government pressure campaign coerced social media platforms (Facebook, YouTube, X) into systematically suppressing conservative viewpoints regarding COVID-19 origins, vaccine efficacy, and election integrity32. The U.S. District Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the federal government engaged in both unconstitutional "coercion" and "significant encouragement"12. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the government had entangled itself so deeply in the platforms' decision-making processes that the moderation decisions became effectively state action43. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit issued a sweeping preliminary injunction barring vast swaths of the executive branch from communicating with platforms about content moderation44. However, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, reversed the Fifth Circuit entirely on procedural grounds, holding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to seek an injunction42. The Court did not reach the First Amendment merits of whether the government's relentless badgering constituted illegal jawboning; rather, it found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the rigorous evidentiary hurdles required to prove federal jurisdiction45. To establish standing for forward-looking injunctive relief under Article III, plaintiffs must demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the government defendants and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling5. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs' evidence failed the "traceability" prong for several fatal reasons:

• Independent Editorial Incentives: Social media platforms have their own robust content moderation policies and independent, profit-driven incentives to suppress false, spammy, or harmful speech to maintain advertiser brand safety13. The Court observed that the Fifth Circuit fundamentally erred by glossing over complexities in the evidentiary record, improperly assuming that every moderation decision was traceable to government pressure rather than the platform's independent editorial discretion42.
• Lack of Specific Causation: The Court found a fatal lack of specific causation linking any discrete instance of content removal to a specific, identifiable government communication46. General alignment between government desires and platform actions is insufficient to prove state action.
• Rejection of the "Right to Listen" Theory: The plaintiffs argued for a broad "right to listen," asserting that the government's censorship deprived them of their right to engage with the content of other speakers on social media42. Justice Barrett rejected this, narrowing the doctrine by stating that a cognizable injury under the right to receive information only exists where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the particular speaker being censored11.
• Forward-Looking Relief: Because the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against future behavior, they were required to prove a real and immediate threat of repeated injury42. The Court held that past jawboning incidents (many of which, like the COVID-19 communications, had long since ceased) were insufficient to predict future coercion by the specific agencies named11.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, penned a fierce and detailed dissent. Alito meticulously detailed the persistent, high-level pressure applied to platforms like Facebook, describing it as a "covert scheme of censorship" that far exceeded the legitimate bounds of the presidential bully pulpit42. He criticized the majority for applying an unreasonably heightened standing standard that ignored the practical realities of subtle, systemic administrative coercion. Alito argued that the dismissal for lack of standing would empower future government officials who seek to control what the people say, hear, and think, allowing them to censor with impunity so long as they obscure the direct chain of causation42.

The Divergence Explained

The juxtaposition of Vullo and Murthy reveals a profound structural vulnerability in First Amendment enforcement. While formal, documented threats against non-speech intermediaries (like banks or insurers) are readily actionable in court, diffuse, systemic pressure applied to technology platforms frequently evades judicial scrutiny. In cases involving algorithms and independent moderation policies, the stringent requirements of Article III standing render jawboning claims nearly impossible to prove without a definitive "smoking gun" email directly linking a government threat to a specific deleted post41. This difficulty is perfectly illustrated by the Ninth Circuit, where jawboning defendants have gone 6-for-6 against plaintiffs in recent years (in cases like Kennedy v. Warren and Huber v. Biden), as courts continually dismiss claims for failing to prove that the platform's moderation was strictly compelled by the state47.

Constitutional Evasion and the Paradox of Platform Editorial Discretion

The traceability hurdle erected in Murthy is fundamentally tied to another major Supreme Court decision from the 2024 term: Moody v. NetChoice (and its companion case, NetChoice v. Paxton). In these cases, the Court reviewed Florida and Texas laws that attempted to prohibit large social media platforms from censoring users based on political viewpoint49. In Moody, the Supreme Court firmly affirmed that social media platforms are private entities that engage in constitutionally protected expressive activity. The selection, ordering, and curation of third-party posts—the very act of content moderation—is a form of "editorial discretion" protected by the First Amendment, much like the editorial decisions of a traditional newspaper49. The government cannot compel platforms to host speech they wish to exclude, nor can it prevent them from downranking content they deem objectionable51. (Notably, while the Court protected human-directed editorial policies, it left open questions regarding highly automated, algorithmic curation that de-centers human judgment, a topic of debate following Meta's massive \$17.1 billion consumer protection settlement regarding child harm53). This robust protection of platform editorial rights creates a severe epistemic and doctrinal paradox for victims of government jawboning. As legal scholars Evelyn Douek and Genevieve Lakier have thoroughly analyzed, the existence of a platform's independent right to curate makes it almost impossible for a censored user to prove that their silencing was the result of government coercion rather than the platform's autonomous choice9. This legal dynamic facilitates a phenomenon known as "constitutional evasion"9. Government officials understand that if they issue a formal, binding order demanding the removal of a political post, they blatantly violate the First Amendment. However, if they continually harangue, critique, implicitly threaten, and request a platform to adjust its overarching terms of service, the subsequent censorship is legally classified by the courts as the platform's protected editorial discretion9. In this arrangement, the private platform inadvertently acts as an impenetrable liability shield for the administrative state. Because the intermediary is exercising a recognized constitutional right to edit its site, the state successfully outsources its censorship without ever triggering the state action doctrine1. The Fifth Circuit attempted to solve this by utilizing the "significant encouragement" test, arguing that extreme government entanglement effectively turns platform decisions into state action, but the Supreme Court's Murthy decision deeply undermined this approach by demanding strictly traced causality9. The result is a highly unbalanced speech rights schema54. The government retains its vast informal power to threaten and persuade; the massive technology conglomerates retain their First Amendment right to silence users and curate their feeds; and the individual citizen is left with absolutely no legal recourse when their speech is suppressed at the intersection of state pressure and corporate compliance41.

Legislative and Structural Remedies: The JAWBONE Act

The procedural dismissal of Murthy v. Missouri underscored a critical, unignorable reality: the current judicial doctrine of standing is structurally ill-equipped to combat the systemic, diffuse nature of digital jawboning. Recognizing that the courts require clear legislative mandates to bypass these procedural blockades, lawmakers have turned to statutory solutions to protect the digital public square.

The Mechanics of the JAWBONE Act

In June 2026, a bipartisan coalition led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression (JAWBONE) Act (S. 4749\)25. The legislation aims to codify the substantive protections articulated in Bantam Books and Vullo while deliberately dismantling the standing barriers that doomed the plaintiffs in Murthy. The JAWBONE Act attacks the architecture of informal censorship through two primary mechanisms:

1. Creation of a Federal Cause of Action: The act explicitly makes it unlawful for any federal agency, officer, or employee acting under color or pretense of office to coerce or attempt to coerce a broadcaster, interactive computer service provider, or AI system provider into taking actions against lawful, First-Amendment-protected speech25. Crucially, by creating a statutory private right of action, the law directly addresses the Murthy traceability problem. It provides victims of state-proxy censorship a direct pathway to sue the government in federal court for damages and injunctive relief, allowing them to challenge the coercion itself without having to definitively untangle the complex algorithmic logic of the platform's moderation decisions55.

2. Mandatory Transparency and Disclosure: Jawboning fundamentally thrives in the shadows of informal meetings, secure messaging apps, and backchannel emails1. The JAWBONE Act attacks this secrecy by requiring federal agencies to submit regular disclosures to Congress regarding their communications with private platforms regarding content moderation3. By forcing the administrative state's interactions with speech intermediaries into the public record, the act deprives officials of the clandestine environment that makes jawboning so effective and unaccountable3.

Criticisms and the Necessity of Broader Structural Reform

While civil liberties organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and Public Knowledge, have lauded the JAWBONE Act as a vital first step, legal analysts note its inherent limitations4. Most notably, the JAWBONE Act applies primarily to executive branch agencies. Due to the absolute immunity granted by the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the act's provisions are highly unlikely to effectively restrain members of Congress36. This is a significant loophole, as lawmakers frequently utilize high-profile committee hearings to browbeat tech executives into censoring lawful speech under the threat of aggressive legislation36. Furthermore, legal and economic scholars argue that statutory causes of action only address the symptoms of jawboning, rather than the underlying disease. The ultimate driver of informal censorship is the vast, highly discretionary regulatory authority vested in agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Department of Justice3. Jawboning thrives in the shadows of regulatory discretion. As long as executive agencies wield vague, expansive mandates (such as the FCC's "public interest" standard for licensing or the FTC's sweeping authority over "unfair" business practices), government officials will possess the inherent, structural leverage required to make their informal threats highly credible to corporate boards3. Comprehensive reform requires Congress to fundamentally narrow the discretionary authority of these agencies. Policymakers must strictly limit the ability of the executive branch to weaponize antitrust reviews, data privacy enforcement, and licensing renewals as leverage to dictate the editorial policies of communication networks3. As long as the administrative state holds the power to destroy a tech platform's core business model, tech platforms will inevitably capitulate to the state's speech preferences, regardless of how many disclosure laws are passed25.

Conclusion

The evolution of government jawboning from the discrete intimidation of analog book distributors to the systemic, algorithmically integrated manipulation of global digital platforms represents one of the most pressing and complex threats to the First Amendment in the 21st century. The foundational doctrine established in Bantam Books—that the state cannot use informal coercion to achieve indirect censorship—remains intellectually sound. As reaffirmed forcefully in NRA v. Vullo, when government officials wield their formal regulatory authority selectively to destroy a disfavored speaker's access to vital intermediary services, they undeniably violate the Constitution. However, the application of this bedrock doctrine to the modern digital public square has faltered under the weight of procedural technicalities. As demonstrated by the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, traditional Article III standing requirements are fundamentally misaligned with the realities of modern content moderation. Because platforms possess their own First Amendment rights to editorial discretion, as upheld in Moody v. NetChoice, the government is able to effortlessly engage in constitutional evasion. The state outsources its censorship desires to private entities, shielding its actions behind the opacity of algorithmic curation, corporate independence, and the high evidentiary bars of federal court jurisdiction. The unprecedented revelations by Mark Zuckerberg, combined with the exposure of CISA’s "switchboarding" apparatus and the EFF's FOIA litigation over app removals, confirm that such administrative coercion is not a theoretical vulnerability, but a standard operating procedure for the modern administrative state. To break this cycle of unaccountable state-proxy censorship, reliance on the judiciary alone is proving insufficient. The introduction of the bipartisan JAWBONE Act signals a necessary legislative shift toward statutory causes of action and mandatory transparency, aiming to finally pierce the veil of informal administrative pressure. Yet, true, lasting protection of the digital marketplace of ideas will ultimately require profound structural reforms that strip executive agencies of the sweeping, vague discretionary powers that make jawboning threats credible in the first place. Until the vast shadows of regulatory discretion are reduced, the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression will remain highly vulnerable to the invisible, coercive hand of the state.

Works cited

1. Enforcing the First Amendment in an Era of Jawboning, https\://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2026-06/01\_Lakier\_ART.pdf

2. The Antidote of Free Speech: Censorship During the Pandemic, https\://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3701\&context=lawreview

3. The JAWBONE Act and the Problem of Censorship by Proxy, https\://truthonthemarket.com/2026/06/15/government-by-raised-eyebrow-the-jawbone-act-and-the-problem-of-censorship-by-proxy/

4. What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?, https\://www\.fire.org/research-learn/what-jawboning-and-does-it-violate-first-amendment

5. Censorship-by-Proxy: Jawboning in the Marketplace of Ideas, https\://laweconcenter.org/resources/censorship-by-proxy-jawboning-in-the-marketplace-of-ideas/

6. The Knight First Amendment Institute \- Supreme Court, https\://www\.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/294120/20231222121422782\_KFAI%20amicus%20brief%20in%20Murthy%20v.%20Missouri.pdf

7. Jawboning as Collaborative Governance, https\://www\.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/browning.pdf

8. The First Amendment Protects Citizens And Businesses Against, https\://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/legal/legal-trends/the-first-amendment-protects-citizens-and-businesses-against-officials-who-use-jawboning-tactics-to-threaten-prosecution

9. Jawboning as a Problem of Constitutional Evasion, https\://knightcolumbia.org/blog/jawboning-as-a-problem-of-constitutional-evasion-or-why-the-significant-encouragement-test-is-not-so-bad

10. Digital Platforms and Epistemic Authority | Texas Law Review, https\://texaslawreview.org/digital-platforms-and-epistemic-authority/

11. Supreme Court Dodges Key Question in Murthy v. Missouri and, https\://www\.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/supreme-court-dodges-key-question-murthy-v-missouri-and-dismisses-case-failing

12. support \- In the Supreme Court of the United States, https\://www\.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/300113/20240208125205732\_Murthy%20v%20Missouri%20merits.pdf

13. Jawboning: What Is It, and Does It Violate the First Amendment?, https\://www\.freedomforum.org/jawboning/

14. NRA v. Vullo | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, https\://www\.fire.org/cases/nra-v-vullo

15. Robin Roebuck, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Mayo Clinic, et al., Defendants, https\://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/az-supreme-court/117696587.html

16. The Weaponization of CISA: How a 'Cybersecurity' Agency Colluded, https\://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU13/20260121/118875/HHRG-119-JU13-20260121-SD001-U1.pdf

17. Murthy v. Missouri — Standing and Social Media Moderation, https\://fedsoc.org/case/murthy-v-missouri

18. The First Amendment's protections against compelled speech, https\://www\.facebook.com/CatoInstitute/posts/the-first-amendments-protections-against-compelled-speech-should-not-depend-on-t/10157510643399077/

19. AAUP v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) Amicus Brief FINAL \- Protect Democracy, https\://protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/051.1-Amicus-Brief-of-FIRE.pdf

20. Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging, https\://www\.techdirt.com/2023/03/15/court-makes-it-clear-government-submissions-to-twitter-flagging-program-do-not-violate-the-1st-amendment/

21. First Amendment Scholars \- In the Supreme Court of the United States, https\://www\.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-842/295757/20240116081345654\_First%20Amendment%20Scholars%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20NRA%20v.%20Vullo.pdf

22. Courthouse Steps Decision: NRA v. Vullo \- The Federalist Society, https\://fedsoc.org/events/courthouse-steps-decision-nra-v-vullo

23. National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo | 602 U.S. \_\_\_ (2024), https\://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/22-842/

24. NRA v. Vullo (jawboning) government officials cannot coerce private, https\://www\.wikilawschool.org/wiki/NRA\_v.\_Vullo\_(jawboning)\_government\_officials\_cannot\_coerce\_private\_parties\_to\_suppress\_disfavored\_speech\_(2024)

25. Bipartisan JAWBONE Act targets government censorship threats, https\://reason.com/2026/06/17/bipartisan-jawbone-act-targets-government-censorship-threats/

26. Section 230 as First Amendment Rule \- Harvard Law Review, https\://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-131/section-230-as-first-amendment-rule/

27. Government and Social Media Corruption After Murthy v. Missouri, https\://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2107\&context=faculty\_articles

28. The Weaponization of CISA: How a 'Cybersecurity' Agency Colluded, https\://www\.cip.uw.edu/2023/08/23/starbird-house-judiciary-committee-report/

29. MURTHY v. MISSOURI | Supreme Court \- Law.Cornell.Edu, https\://www\.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23-411

30. Did Biden's White House pressure Mark Zuckerberg to censor, https\://www\.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/27/did-bidens-white-house-pressure-mark-zuckerberg-to-censor-covid-content

31. Zuckerberg Says Biden Admin Pressured Censorship of Some, https\://time.com/7015026/meta-facebook-zuckerberg-covid-biden-pressure-censorship/

32. the censorship-industrial complex: how top biden white house, https\://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Biden-WH-Censorship-Report-final.pdf

33. Mark Zuckerberg says White House 'pressured' Facebook to censor, https\://www\.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/27/mark-zuckerberg-says-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-covid-19-content

34. Zuckerberg vows to resist federal efforts to influence Meta's content, https\://www\.cbsnews.com/news/zuckerberg-resist-federal-influence-meta-content-facebook-instagram-whatsapp-content/

35. Title VI as a Jawbone | Knight First Amendment Institute, https\://knightcolumbia.org/blog/title-vi-as-a-jawbone

36. The Case for the JAWBONE Act \- Public Knowledge, https\://publicknowledge.org/the-case-for-the-jawbone-act/

37. A New Bill Takes Aim at Government Pressure to Silence Lawful, https\://www\.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/new-bill-takes-aim-government-pressure-silence-lawful-online-speech

38. NRA v. Vullo Strengthens First Amendment Protections, https\://www\.brewerattorneys.com/brewerblog/nra-v-vullo-strengthens-first-amendment-protections

39. Supervisory threats can violate the First Amendment \- Davis Polk, https\://www\.davispolk.com/insights/client-update/supervisory-threats-can-violate-first-amendment

40. Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech dispute with New, https\://www\.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d47npz/supreme\_court\_sides\_with\_nra\_in\_free\_speech/

41. The Supreme Court's Jawboning Decision \- Stanford Law School, https\://law.stanford.edu/podcast/the-supreme-courts-jawboning-decision/

42. Murthy v. Missouri: The First Amendment and Government Influence, https\://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro-9-2-3/ALDE\_00000075/%5B'tenth',%20'amendment'%5D

43. Murthy v. Missouri | 603 U.S. \_\_\_ (2024) \- Justia Supreme Court, https\://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-411/

44. Government Platform Communication, Jawboning, and the First, https\://law.stanford.edu/podcast/governmentplatform-communication-jawboning-and-the-first-amendment/

45. Murthy v. Missouri: A Case of Standing | Maryland State Bar, https\://www\.msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Murthy\_v.\_Missouri\_A\_Case\_of\_Standing.aspx

46. 23-411 Murthy v. Missouri (06/26/2024) \- Supreme Court, https\://www\.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411new\_197d.pdf

47. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Sue Over Government Jawboning When, https\://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/06/plaintiffs-lack-standing-to-sue-over-government-jawboning-when-their-evidence-is-based-on-vibes-murthy-v-missouri.htm

48. Murthy v. Missouri (2024) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia, https\://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/murthy-v-missouri-2024/

49. US Supreme Court Rulings on Social Media Cases, https\://globallawexperts.com/us-supreme-court-rulings-on-social-media-cases-3/

50. AI After the Election: Potential Differences Between a Harris, https\://www\.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2024/8/ai-after-the-election-potential-differences-between-a-harris-administration-and-a-second-trump-administration-for-artificial-intelligence-regulation

51. EXAMINING NETCHOICE AND MURTHY: CONTENT, https\://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017\&context=sjipl

52. The 2023-24 Supreme Court That Was—And Wasn't \- Justia's Verdict, https\://verdict.justia.com/2024/07/02/the-2023-24-supreme-court-that-was-and-wasnt

53. No, the Meta Settlement Isn't a First Amendment Problem, https\://www\.techpolicy.press/no-the-meta-settlement-isnt-a-first-amendment-problem/

54. Jawboning and the First Amendment, https\://knightcolumbia.org/research/jawboning

55. Cruz, Wyden Introduce Legislation to Guard First Amendment, https\://www\.commerce.senate.gov/press/rep/release/cruz-wyden-introduce-legislation-to-guard-first-amendment-speech-rights-against-government-jawboning/

56. US S. 4749 \- US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session | LegiPlex, https\://app.legiplex.com/us/legislature/2025/us119/bills/sb4749

57. Senate Commerce Panel Advances 10 Bills on Speech, Fisheries, https\://legis1.com/news/senate-commerce-committee-panel-advances-10-bills